Anarcno-Communism is NOT an oxymoron. Here is a definition taken from Anarchism and the Black Revolution by Lorenzo Komboa Ervin

Anarchist-Communists are revolutionary Anarchists who believe in the philosophy of class struggle, an end to Capitalism, and all farms of oppression. Contrary to Anarchist-Syndicalism it does not limit itself to workplace organizing. The philosophy is based on the theories of Peter Kropotkin, another Russian Anarchist. Kropotkin and his fellow Anarchist-Communists not only envisaged the commune and workers' councils as the, proper guardians of production; they also attacked the wage system in all its forms, and revived the ideas of Libertarian communism. This type of Anarchism is known as Libertarian Socialism also, and includes Mast Socialists who are also opposed to the State, dictatorship, and party rule, though they are not Anarchists.

Since the 1870s the principles of Anarchist-Communism have been accepted by most Anarchist organizations favoring revolution. This Anarchist or Libertarian Communism must, of course, not be confused with much better known communism of the Marxist-Leninists, the communism which is based on state ownership of the economy and control of the both production and distribution, and also on party dictatorship. That form of authoritarian communist society is based on oppression and slavery to the state, while we favor a free, voluntary communism of shared resources. Libertarian Communism is not Bolshevism and has no connection with or support for Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky or Mao Tse Tung. It is not state or private control over the essentials of life we seek, and we oppose all forms of dictatorship. Anarchist communists seek to foster the growth of a new society in which freedom to develop as one see t is integrated to the fullest extent with social responsibility to others.http://lemming.mahost.org/abr/abr3.htm

Proper Guardians of Production I love that phrase, and what happens when some want to guard production to gain personal advantage? What happens then? Anyone care to enlighten me?

Communism on the surface was a great idea, problem with it was it ignored the fact that people were involved in it, and that people will always strive to better their situation. Once someone dictates what will or will not be done, true anarchism stops.

So if this means the subjugation of others, so be it. This is why Anarchist-Communism is a flawed idea as it denies the human factor of the equation.

Although I'm not a communist myself, there are several things wrong with what you're saying.

First, not all communists are collectivists. William Godwin would be one example, but there are also those who think that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is an expression of individualism, since "ability" and "need" are both self-determined.

What happens if some want to guard production? If the means of production they're guarding is their own, that's perfectly fine. If the means of production they're guarding is not their own, but belongs to someone else (or possibly belongs to the collective), then that's not fine. I could just as easily ask what happens under anarcho-capitalism if someone wants to guard the production of somebody else's things.

Besides, you seem to be under the impression that anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism are the only possible forms of anarchism. They're not; many anarchists are anti-capitalist, but pro-free market. I myself, for example, consider myself a mutualist.

I heard on the Non-Prophets Podcast (put out by the Atheist Community of Austin) that Michael Shermer's speech was basically "Hey, if you're a Skeptic, you should be a Libertarian". When he did a poll by show of hands, only a small percentage indicated strongly libertarian (even smaller conservative), while most were liberal Democrats (and presumably further Left). Still, there are many vocal public atheists who are also Libertarian. And I will give credit where it's due...they've done a lot of grunt work to advance the cause of secularism. Sometimes I agree with the editors of Reason magazine. Other times I think they're full of crap.

I consider myself a democratic (state) socialist, but I have sympathies with some anarcho-syndicalist ideas (especially workplace democracy). I prefer experiments like Tito's Yugoslavia, which really tried to move forward with aspects of workplace democracy, or the Mondragon communities in the Basque region of Spain. There are some aspects of the "nanny state" mentality that annoy the crap out of me, and I'm vigorously pro-2nd Amendment, which alienates me from many otherwise well-meaning Lefties.

Local autonomy, anarchist communes have existed, but where I see problems would be situations like the old Jim Crow American South. American schools down there were de-segregated by force of state arms, against the wishes of the majority of locals. That's statism I approve of, frankly. Coercion? You bet. Justified? I think so.

The elder Paul Kurtz of CFI was once a proud Socialist and is definitely still on "The Left".

I enjoy reading the blog Lenin's Tomb, but boy, he likes poking fun at the "New Atheists" and I think all too often turns a blind eye to the threat of militant Islam. You can oppose the Iraq and Afghan wars and still oppose radical/militant Islam in society at large--which is an option that both Lenin's Tomb (anti-war) and ex-Trot Christopher Hitchens (pro-war) seemingly fail to recognize.